It's absolutely amazing that Trump's approval is as HIGH as 37%.
It is also significant that it remains the case that a very large majority of Republicans still supports him. That will probably rule out impeachment. I hate to acknowledge that, but I think it's true. The Republicans in Congress will not do it, because they can't see that it will help their re-election prospects. The era, if there ever was one, of responsibility in American politics, is over.
Still, think about it. Almost 75% of Republicans support Trump, but his national support is only half that. That means almost everyone else doesn't support him. (Remember, nonvoters and Independents outnumber both Republicans and Democrats). It also means our nation is divided more sharply not only ideologically but regionally, in terms of social class, and, to varying lesser degrees racially and ethnically, as never before.
What a dreadful situation. We must strive in every way, being more active than ever, to bring about change from the bottom up!
I just mailed a whole slew of postcards to state representatives and senators here in Oregon urging support for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Already passed in Washington, California, New York, Illinois and enough other states to combine to 165 electoral votes, the uniform statute, when enacted by enough states to amount to 270, will take effect, requiring those states' electors to be pledged to vote for the candidate who WON THE POPULAR VOTE, as tallied in the official vote tally. The law is expected to pass muster in the courts as a proper Interstate Compact, because under existing case law where powers of the Federal Government under the Constitution are not involved, interstate compacts do not require Congressional approval. The governing portion of the Constitution, a mere 17 words, is very clear in granting the exclusive power to the states to determine how their electors would be chosen. (In fact, the current winner take all in 48 of the 50 states is not in the Constitution, and did not come to predominate until the 1880s).
If your state has not already passed NPV, please get involved in getting it passed. 2 of the last 5 elections did not result in the person who won the vote of the people becoming president. This must never be allowed to happen again.
PLEASE GET INVOLVED to make sure that is the case.
It's not too early to assume that we will win. On every front. Specifically, on health care: I believe that, at minimum, a public option added to a somewhat tweaked ACA (with, for example, built in negotiations for pharmaceutical prices and medical equipment prices), plus lowering the enrollment age for Medicare to 55 and adding Vision and Dental, all paid for by increased taxes on the wealthier among us, is what we must fight for. (Since people in the higher end of Middle Class will be paying less in health care premiums, the increased taxes will be largely or even entirely offset; only the very rich will pay dramatically more, AS THEY SHOULD).
Then, gradually, Medicare enrollment can be narrowed from both ends. First, Medicaid for children can be rolled into Medicare (to age 18). Then the enrollment age for Medicare can be reduced to 45 and increased to 25, then, a few years later, Medicare for All can be rolled out.
Private Insurers will be impacted, of course, but Switzerland, France and Germany have a regulated NONPROFIT private insurance system, and so do we (minus the nonprofit part, but that can be mandated), even for Medicare. It's called Medicare Advantage. Personally, I think a pure socialist system is better, but the entrenched interests in this country probably preclude that for some time at least. And Medicare for All with ZERO SUBSIDY Medicare Advantage would work out pretty well. In the long run private management can't really compete with public options for paying for medical care, and fewer and fewer people will elect to pay high added premiums for relatively little value. (Right now, thanks to Republicans, Medicare Advantage amounts to a large subsidy for those people well enough off to pay a portion of the added cost for private plans... Medicare Advantage patients cost about 20% more than baseline Medicare patients. You rarely hear that mentioned in all of this). But if it does compete, then fine, I have no objection to private management. Many state Medicaid programs are managed by health insurers already.
"Increasing competition and choice would lower prices for all kinds of insurance. Lower prices would free up corporate dollars for other things like innovation and jobs. Lower prices would also make it far more affordable for Americans to buy their own insurance than wait for government to subsidize it."
Please, can we just stipulate to apply some modicum of honesty and logic to the health care mess? The Republican bill needs to be renamed for what it is: The Unaffordable Care Act. It's really pretty simple. You can't keep a few popular chestnuts, while radically cutting benefits (both Medicaid and subsidies for lower income people who can barely afford insurance under the current law), eliminating virtually all the tax provisions (which are relatively progressive) in the current law, doing nothing about out of control prescription drug and medical services prices, and not get the obvious result:
Of course, after destroying the whole purpose and mechanisms of the ACA, which weren't great but at least afforded folks some help, they will just declare victory and watch the incredible destructiveness of their mean and stupid policies unfold.
For shame, Republicans! You are not only mean, you're cheap, greedy, favor the rich over the poor (how Christian of you), and you lie constantly and systematically. Swell folks.
Trump: reasonable and serious grounds to suspect refusal to reveal evidence (Tax Returns, other things) that likely indicate widespread violation of the Emoluments Clause and actual conflict of interest precluding continuing as president.
Sessions: plain evidence on the record of a serious crime: lying to Congress during confirmation hearing. Various excuses are extremely thin.
Remember, impeachment is the charge. They are presumed innocent in their trial before the Senate, if they don't have the intelligence and good grace to resign.
Thing is, we're not naive. This probably won't happen. But that DOES NOT MEAN Democrats should not be insisting on it. Indeed, they should say, we will not entertain any other business apart from national security emergencies until these matters are resolved.
Researchers (link below for more info) have eliminated other possible explanations for fossils that reliably date to 3.75 b.y. old. These are microfossils of what are essentially bacteria or bacteria like organisms. What is so significant about this is that it pushes back, right to the actual time when life first became physically possible on this planet, after the period of Solar System history referred to as the Late Heavy Bombardment (when asteroids collided with the inner planets regularly... they're the origin of the giant maria, actually craters, on the Moon). Before that, the surface was regularly literally melted, so that life could not have obtained a foothold. This suggests that either of two broad historical contingencies must have occurred: 1. A spectacularly unlikely event, the origin of life, just happened to occur almost immediately after it first became physically possible. Or, as is at least suggestibly more likely, 2. The origin of life itself is NOT spectacularly unlikely, and, in fact, is likely to occur relatively readily once conditions favorable to it are in place.
